The PBS series Frontline portrays itself as a tough
investigative program willing to tackle any issue. But how does
it stand up to investigation? MediaWatch analysts reviewed every new Frontline broadcast during the last three seasons (72 programs) and found:

Conservative arguments and experts were completely ignored in
eight programs on race relations and seven shows on the
environment. In another 15 investigations of domestic politics,
40 percent of topics came from a left-wing issue agenda. In foreign
policy, 42 percent of topics came from the left, 4 percent from the
right.

Race Relations. In eight programs on race, not a
single conservative voice appeared. In 1990's "Throwaway
People," Roger Wilkins, a fellow at the radical Institute for
Policy Studies, expounded on inner-city decline: "In the
'80s.... the old racist libel about moral inferiority that used to
be leveled at blacks was now focused on the poor. It justified
crippling the only programs that provided any ladder at all. The
Reagan Revolution slashed $51 billion in social spending."

Other programs contended that lack of gun control is the
reason black teenagers are murdered more often than whites, and
that racist banks deny loans to deserving black applicants. In
"Black America's War," Anita Hill confidant Charles Ogletree
moderated a one-sided panel discussion with Hodding Carter,
Jesse Jackson, and Newsweek's Joe Klein [then with New York].

A lead-in documentary set the tone: "The disengagement of the
rich, the growing divide between black and white: the arguments
seemed a metaphor for what this country had become in the
1980s. One writer, looking at how differently the war was
perceived by whites and blacks, dubbed it the Reagan-Bush gap." The
chairman of the Joint Chiefs was called a sell-out: "Domestic
programs were being cut, civil rights leaders protested loudly. [Gen.
Colin] Powell remained loyal to Weinberger and Reagan. They, in
turn, were loyal to him." Powell was even attacked in victory:
"This man would go on to orchestrate in the Persian Gulf one of
the most punishing bombing campaigns ever unleashed....yet few
have chosen to criticize Powell for that."

Environment. In seven shows, none included
conservative voices. The most recent: Moyers' March 30 "In Our
Children's Food," linking pesticides to cancer in children.
Other shows included a four-part series on development in the
rain forests, and another Moyers documentary (co-produced by the
left-wing Center for Investigative Reporting) that the United States is
turning the earth into a "global dumping ground" for hazardous
waste.

Foreign Policy. Frontline's favorite topic is
foreign policy, the subject of 24 of the 72 programs (33
percent). Ten of those 24 (42 percent) came from a left-wing agenda.
Programs included a graphic depiction of civilian casualties of
U.S. bombing in Iraq by leftists Andrew and Leslie Cockburn; the
allegation that Oliver North used Anglican Church envoy Terry
Waite as a dupe; and endorsements for a Japanese-style
industrial policy for America.

Frontline also enjoyed hunting down Republican foreign
policy scandals. Bill Moyers hosted "High Crimes and
Misdemeanors," a look at Iran-Contra. He saw the scandal in
almost apocalyptic terms. "What happened in Iran-Contra was
nothing less than the systematic disregard for democracy
itself...officials who boasted of themselves as men of the Constitution
showed utter contempt for the law. They had the money and power
to do what they wanted, the guile to hide their tracks, and the
arrogance to declare what they did was legal."

Robert Parry reported two programs charging that the 1980
Reagan campaign conspired to delay the release of the hostages
in Iran. The first program aired in April of 1991. After The New Republic, Newsweek, and even the Village Voice denounced the October Surprise theory as fraudulent, Frontline
devoted yet another hour to renouncing Parry's initial sources as
liars, but suggesting they may have been sent out to lie by the
CIA.

Conservatives were allowed to answer hostile inquiries, but Frontline foreign
policy investigations never aired conservative arguments, such
as the illegitimacy of the Boland Amendments restricting contra
aid.

Only one show reflected a conservative theme. "Cuba and
Cocaine" detailed the Castro government's role in the drug
trade, but criticisms of the regime at large were nonexistent.
An October 17, 1992, Castro biography, "The Last Communist,"
ignored the drug charges and gave only brief mention to human
rights abuses. It's little wonder. In 1990, Washington Times television writer Don Kowet reported filmmaker Nestor Almendros was told: "Frontline does not co-produce anti-communist programs."

Domestic Politics. Of the 15 shows on domestic politics, six (40 percent) came from the left. Frontline
did not limit its taste for right-wing threats to foreign
affairs."The Resurrection of Reverend Moon" hinted that the
conservative movement is partially controlled by the leaders of the
Unification Church. Last season, Frontline outlined unproven charges that FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover was a transvestite.

Topics also included David Duke, with no corresponding
investigation of anyone on the extreme left with disreputable
views; a 60-minute complaint that the U.S. does not have a
"national energy strategy" because of Bush's chief of staff,
John Sununu; and a Bill Moyers look at the supposedly significant
domestic opposition to the Gulf War. Only an April 1992 investigation
of then-Gov. Bill Clinton's child welfare reform program would
please a conservative, even if the critique came from the left.

Reagan-Bush victories were belittled by former Washington Post
editor William Greider in a two-hour 1992 special. "The
Republican Party's artful election strategy has been
accomplished not by addressing the real economic concerns of the
disaffected working class but by broadcasting messages attuned to their
resentments," he sermonized. "They concocted a rancid
populism, perfectly attuned to the age of political decay. The party of
money won national elections mainly by posing as the party of
the alienated." Speaking of making money, Greider's essay aired
just as his book Who Will Tell the People hit book stores.

In the last three years, Frontline has produced some fine
non-political shows, on topics such as baseball's financial
troubles. On political issues, however, its bias is beyond
question. Frontline producers have argued that they simply
examine those in power, and Republicans held the White House. But how
do they explain the lack of investigative stories on the misuse
of power in Congress or entrenched regulatory agencies?

NewsBites: It's His Fault

It's His Fault. Why did President Bill Clinton
have trouble getting his tax and spend budget passed? Could it
be because Clinton broke his promise to reduce spending and
provide a middle class tax cut? No, it's You Know Who's fault.
In a front page story on August 1, New York Times Washington
Bureau Chief R.W. Apple explained: "To understand why it has
been so hard for Clinton to achieve his goals...one has to hark back
to the presidency of Ronald Reagan and the political atmosphere he
created. It is still with us, and it makes Clinton look like
Sisyphus on a bad day."

The notion that "most federal programs were bad, taxes were
bad, spending was bad," Apple argued, "continues to exert a hold
over a broad section of the American electorate. As a result,
politicians are terrified to wear the awful label, `tax and
spend,' however much their constituents need government money
for health care or roads."

A Hungry Globe. Just a month and a half after a Boston Globe story insisted "most readers would agree that the Globe's liberal bias has been toned down in news stories," the July 25 Sunday Globe
allocated four full pages to Stan Grossfeld's photos and article under
the title of "Wasting Away: America's Losing Battle Against
Hunger." Citing Larry Brown of the left-wing Center on Hunger,
Poverty and Nutrition Policy, Grossfeld asserted: "Widespread
hunger in the United States was virtually eliminated in the 1970s,
according to Brown, but hunger increased dramatically and steadily
during the 1980s. To put it simply, the rich got richer and the
poor got poorer."

Grossfeld charged that "during President Reagan's first term,
$12 billion was cut from the food stamp and school meal
programs." In fact, as detailed in a 1986 column by the late
Warren Brookes, in constant 1984 dollars food stamp spending
grew 1.5 percent between 1981 and 1984 as the number of qualifying
recipients fell. In nominal dollars, National School Lunch Program
spending grew from $2.28 billion in 1980 to $2.58 billion in 1985.

Grossfeld noted that "the number of food stamp recipients
reached an all-time high of 27.4 million in June. One in 10
Americans is now eating courtesy of government handouts." What
was his answer to the hunger problem? Even more spending, urging
passage of the $7.3 billion Leland Hunger Relief Bill. And under the
heading of "What You Can Do," he suggested: "1. Support
legislation to fully fund existing federal food programs."

Brainy, Brave Moseley-Braun. During the Senate confirmation hearings for Supreme Court nominee Ruth Bader Ginsburg, USA Today's
Jessica Lee reported on July 23 that liberal Senator Carol
Moseley-Braun "showed how racial diversity can have an impact.
She...got an apology from Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah." Lee
explained: "While questioning Ginsburg, Hatch equated the
interpretation of a `fundamental right' in the Roe vs. Wade abortion ruling to that in the 1857 Dred Scott
case upholding slavery. Interrupting, Moseley-Braun called Hatch's line
of questioning `personally offensive.' Hatch promptly
apologized." In fact, Hatch replied: "I apologize if I was
inarticulate in what I was saying, but I don't think I was."

In contrast to the triumph of "racial diversity" described by Lee, the same day reporter Joan Biskupic of The Washington Post
corrected Moseley-Braun's condemnation of the Utah Republican.
"In fact, Hatch was not providing a `rationale' for slavery. He
compared the two cases as examples of `judicial activism,'
calling Dred Scott the `all-time worst' court ruling."

Cold War Communists. NBC weekend Today host
Mike Schneider noted the 40th anniversary of the execution of
Julius and Ethel Rosenberg on June 20: "Today's kids may have a
difficult time understanding what it was like during the Cold
War, especially back in the `50s. There were fears of atomic bombs
falling from the sky, of communists lurking behind the scenes, almost
everywhere. They told us we were in great danger, all of us in
great danger, and they also, sometimes told us who to blame --
Julius and Ethel Rosenberg...Forty years later, some still
wonder, did the Rosenbergs really betray their country and
endanger the lives of millions? Or were they victims of a witch
hunt, innocents who paid the ultimate price?" To answer that
question, Schneider interviewed only Robert Meeropol, the
Rosenbergs' son, who still maintains his parents' innocence.

Jacob Cohen of Brandeis University thinks otherwise. In the July 19 National Review,
Cohen reviewed the allegations against the Rosenbergs: "It now
seemed strongly possible that Julius Rosenberg was a central
player in far-flung espionage activities, covering the years
1943-1950...who, except the Soviets, could have told Rosenberg
about the secret work at Los Alamos, including details about the
A-bomb itself, before [Los Alamos technician and Julius
Rosenberg's brother-in-law David] Greenglass knew anything about
it?"

Turner's Page Turner. For the past five years, CNN employees have been treated to the State of the World
report from Lester Brown's Worldwatch Institute. In a recent
"Dear Colleague" memo, Ted Turner explained his reasons for
distributing the new edition: "The 1993 State of the World gives
the information needed to make intelligent environmental decisions
that can make a difference. I hope that you find it as illuminating,
useful, and ultimately hopeful, as I have." The Institute,
however, can hardly be described as hopeful, as anchor Jeanne
Meserve proved in a July 17 World News report: "The
world's population growth is showing clear signs of outpacing
the food supply. That's according to a report from the
Worldwatch Institute."

Steve Haworth, CNN's Vice President for Public Relations, told MediaWatch
the report was distributed to "inform rather than to influence
the editorial content of the newscasts. Our environmental
coverage has always been fair and balanced and will continue to
be so." Yet when asked if Turner planned to pass out materials
with other viewpoints, Haworth pointed to Turner's personal
relationship with Lester Brown and suggested that the news
employees are "amply able" to gather opposing viewpoints. As for
other resources CNN could use, conservative economist Julian
Simon suggested the fashionably liberal United Nations Food and
Agricultural Organization annual report, which shows calorie
production per capita continuing to increase, as it has annually since
1950.

Psychologists Call It Denial. As a few media heavies like NBC's Tim Russert ask what went wrong with the 1990 budget deal, The Washington Post suggested
nothing's wrong. On July 18, reporter John E. Yang argued that
although the annual deficit is $60 billion higher than 1990,
"that's not because the 1990 budget agreement failed, analysts
say. The tax increases in that package have generated additional
revenue and the spending limits have curbed the growth of
federal discretionary spending."

But as Wall Street Journal columnist Paul Gigot
pointed out, IRS revenue estimates show tax revenues fell in
1991, the first decline since 1983. Even though "the rich" were
"soaked" by tax hikes in 1990, revenues from those earning
$200,000 or more fell 6 percent, while for everyone else,
revenue rose 3.3 percent. And discretionary spending curbed?
"Nonsense," says Republican economist Stephen Moore.
"Discretionary spending has been going up eight percent every year,
twice the rate of inflation."

Yang continued: "The unhappy lesson of the 1990 budget battle
is that it was overwhelmed by unexpected developments: a
recession that was deeper than forecast, a war in the Persian
Gulf, natural disasters from Hurricane Andrew to Typhoon Iniki
and so on." But the government was mostly reimbursed by allies for
the Gulf War. "We ended up spending maybe $5 billion," Moore
told MediaWatch. And a recession following a tax hike? That's only unexpected by liberals.

Invasion of the Bible-Thumpers. A "nationwide
Christian fundamentalist movement to take over public school
boards." Is this a new movie plot? No, it's ABC's "American
Agenda" on Pennsylvania education reforms. On the June 30 and
July 1 World News Tonight, reporter Bill Blakemore
targeted Citizens for Excellence in Education (CEE), run by Dr. Robert
Simonds. Blakemore questioned the tactics of the group: "There is
nothing illegal about the organized approach the CEE is taking
to get people on school boards. But Simonds' opponents charge
that candidates inspired by him often hide their real agendas
until after they're elected." He also spoke to parents who
"believe that the Christian right needs to be exposed," and
found a minister who called the practices "stealthful."

Blakemore discussed Pennsylvania's Outcome Based Education
(OBE), a new program that sets up state-dictated guidelines or
"values" that all students should have. Religious activists
opposed to the program were twice identified on-screen as
"anti-reform" leaders. Blakemore asserted that reform leaders
believe attacks to their plan are a "smokescreen for a hidden
Christian fundamentalist agenda." And they think Oliver Stone is
paranoid.

Not Even a Brief Briefing. Despite Bill Clinton's siding with "those who work hard and play by the rules," the media ignored an August American Spectator expose
of hypocrisy in the Clintons' own finances. Lisa Schiffren
discovered that while the President threw nominees overboard for
not paying taxes on nannies, the Clintons never paid taxes in
1980 on their state-funded nanny, Dessie Sanders. In 1981 and
1982, when Clinton was out of office, they claimed a child care
exemption for Sanders' services, but still didn't pay any Social
Security taxes for her.

Schiffren also revealed that contrary to the media myth, Bill
Clinton did not earn only $35,000 as Governor. His expenses
were often paid out of various state funds, including a $51,000
"food allowance" and a $19,000 "public relations" fund, never
claimed as income. Schiffren also revealed Hillary Clinton's
aggressive tax deductions, including more than $1,000 a year for used
clothing donations, such as $3 for Bill's used undershirts and $1 a
pair for Bill and Chelsea's underwear. A month after
Schiffren's story appeared, the media which grilled Nancy Reagan
for keeping donated evening gowns had yet to mention it.

ABC's Missing Connection. Evidence connects both
Afghan fundamentalists and Nicaraguan Sandinistas to the World
Trade Center bombing. Which one got network coverage? ABC blamed
America first. Nightline focused its June 16 show on the
U.S.-funded Afghan rebel connection, mentioning it on June 24, 25 and
July 1. Then on July 12, Day One sent John Hockenberry to
Afghanistan to explore "The Afghanistan Connection." Forrest
Sawyer introduced the piece: "One nation did, in fact, unwittingly
pay to train some of these people and at one time supplied them
and others like them with billions of dollars in weapons. That
nation is the United States, and it all goes back to the U.S.
involvement in the Afghanistan war."

Two days later, Douglas Farah wrote a front page story for The Washington Post
detailing how an explosion in Managua uncovered a
Sandinista-owned "guerrilla arsenal" housing "tons of weapons,
including 19 surface-to-air missiles...documents detailing a
Marxist kidnaping ring...and hundreds of false passports and
identity papers." Farah noted that "fraudulently obtained
Nicaraguan passports were discovered in March at the home of a
suspect arrested in New York in connection" with the Trade
Center bombing, Ibraham Elgabrowny. This development led the
U.S. Senate to vote overwhelmingly on July 29 for a one-year
moratorium on aid to Nicaragua. ABC's response? No story.

Revolving Door: deLaski's Defensive Detail

For the March 27 World News Tonight, Kathleen deLaski
filed a story on Defense Secretary Les Aspin's budget
presentation. Now, Aspin's her boss. In July, deLaski became the
chief public affairs officer at the Defense Department. Before
joining ABC's Washington bureau in 1988, she worked at WBAL-TV in
Baltimore and covered arms control and defense for National Public
Radio.

Last year she contributed to ABC's campaign coverage. In a
September 20 story, deLaski looked at candidate misstatements.
After noting that Clinton falsely claimed Bush would cut Social
Security, she continued: "Republican scare tactics are not so
targeted to certain voting blocs. Bush is accused of using Clinton's
tax plan to scare almost everyone." Viewers then saw a clip of Bush
asserting "He says he wants to tax the rich, but folks, he
defines rich as anyone who has a job." To which, deLaski
retorted, "Not true. Middle class Americans, Clinton says, will
get a tax cut, although he has yet to define middle class."

As troops were going to Somalia, she found: "Some food aid
groups are calling for more spending at home, particularly after
a recent study showed that the numbers of undernourished
swelled by 50 percent in the last decade," she asserted leading
into a soundbite from Robert Fersh of the Food Research and
Action Center. Her Dec. 6 story failed to identify Fersh as liberal
or to include a conservative view.

In step with Clintonite thinking that "tax and spend" equals
caring, she concluded that a "poll suggests that most Americans
are already sensitive to the problems of hunger in America.
Two-thirds of those surveyed said they'd be willing to pay a
special income tax of $100 a year to feed this nation's hungry."

Bye-Bye John

In July John Chancellor said goodbye to 40-plus years with
NBC, interrupted in 1966 by a two-year stint as Director of the
Voice of America for the Johnson Administration. NBC Nightly News anchor from 1972 to 1982, he's offered commentary for the past decade. The Washington Post bade farewell with this headline: "John Chancellor, Giving the Voice of Reason a Rest." The Post's
Howard Kurtz relayed, "Chancellor says his own politics are
more left-of-center than his on-screen analysis. `I think you
hold back some,' he says. Over the years, he says, he `probably
developed a way of looking the news that was pretty centrist.'"

Voice of Reason? Centrist? From April 17, 1990: "The overall
tax burden for Americans, federal, state, and local, is actually
quite low....The fact is Americans could pay more taxes and the
country wouldn't go down the tube. Taxpayers don't believe this
because they are being conned by the politicians...The truth is
that the United States needs higher taxes and can afford them. Some
political leaders are now starting to say that, but until more say
it, the country will remain in trouble."

Rationalizing the Los Angeles riots on April 20 last year:
"It's not a big surprise that the jury in suburban Simi Valley
sided with the white policemen. Just as it's no surprise that
the blacks in downtown Los Angeles rioted and people died....
Politicians have fanned these flames with code words about
`welfare queens,' `equal opportunity,' and `quotas.' Language designed
to turn whites against blacks. With two-party politics that
favored the rich and hurt everyone else."

Networks Legitimize NRDC's Press Release Science

"Passive Conduits" On Pesticides

New York Times Science Editor Nicholas Wade conceded
that the media often serve as a "passive conduit" for
environmentalists. The quote came in a July 27 Washington Post
story on a Center for Media and Public Affairs (CMPA) poll of
scientists which found "the media overplay minor environmental
threats to health." Wade confirmed to the Post's Howard
Kurtz: "Often we're just doing our duty in following the activism
of environmentalists, who make an issue of radon in houses or
abandoned Superfund sites."

On June 21, the "passive conduits" struck again. The National
Resources Defense Council (NRDC) released a report supposedly
summarizing a National Academy of Sciences analysis. CNN and ABC
simply passed on the NRDC summary. ABC's Bettina Gregory
warned: "The National Academy of Sciences is coming out with a
report expected to document that children are more vulnerable
than adults to pesticide residues."

But a week later, the actual NAS report contained no
conclusion resembling the NRDC summary. The report said nothing
about the danger pesticides pose to children. The report only
suggested EPA regulations might be altered to account for the tolerance
levels of children. Still, the media ignored what the actual NAS
report said, and continued to parrot the NRDC summary.

The New York Times ran four stories in a little over a week using the NRDC spin. NBC Nightly News
anchor Garrick Utley warned June 27: "A major new report
ordered by Congress shows that pesticides are a greater danger to
children than previously thought."

Peter Jennings introduced a June 28 ABC story: "The National
Academy of Sciences reports today that children may be ingesting
unsafe amounts of pesticide residue." He conceded that NAS
called for more testing, but reporter Ned Potter picked up the
baton: "Two billion pounds a year. That's how much pesticide we
use on our fruits and vegetables...Is it dangerous? The National
Academy report is only the latest indication it may be."

In the July 16 Investor's Business Daily, Michael
Fumento reported, "The NRDC statement indicated there was no
reason to wait for the NAS report, since the NAS was just going
to say what the NRDC already had. The confusion over who was
saying what may not be coincidental."

Fumento quoted NRDC skeptics who charged "by pre-empting the
NAS report, the environmental groups were able to get an
extremist message tied to a respected scientific body." No
wonder the CMPA survey discovered just six percent of cancer
researchers consider network news to be a "very reliable" source
for news about cancer risks.

Two Views on the Ozone
Hole

ABC vs. ABC

On July 1, ABC's Prime Time Live repeated questionable
environmentalist claims that a decaying ozone layer is
increasing skin cancer rates and blinding herds of sheep on the
tip of South America. "Thanks to ozone depletion, experts are
predicting 300,000 new cases of skin cancer in the future," Sam
Donaldson warned.

John Quinones went to Punta Arenas, Argentina, supposedly the
most affected area. He agreed with the apocalyptic line: "When
it's not filtered by the ozone layer... [ultraviolet] radiation
damages living tissue, causing skin cancer and cataracts." He
noted ominously: "What happens to the people of Punta Arenas is a
valuable lesson to the rest of the world. For recently
scientists discovered that the ozone layer was also eroding over the
northern hemisphere."

Quinones used only two quotes from a skeptical scientist, but
26 from doom-saying sources, like a local professor: "[Dr.]
Magas believes the entire population of this town is an
endangered species, thanks to the extreme levels of UV."
Quinones didn't put on dermatologist Dr. Frederick Urbach, a consultant
to the U.N., who told Reason magazine: "You can crunch numbers in a computer and get whatever result you want to come out."

In fact, ABC-owned KGO-TV in San Francisco broadcast a
special in April 1992 with a much different conclusion. Reporter
Brian Hackney traveled to Argentina, and talked with the only
dermatologist in Punta Arenas, who said skin cancer cases have
not increased. He further reported that the only cancer study done
in the region indicated "sun tanning habits" explain the
majority of skin cancer.

And the blind sheep? Hackney found no blind flocks, and had
to travel hundreds of miles to find even one ranch with
blindness problems (only 2 percent of the herd suffered from it).
Hackney took samples of eyeballs from sheep with vision problems back
to America for study. A biopsy report by a veterinary
opthalmologist determined that a common microorganism caused the
blindness, and that UV was at best a minor factor. After
Hackney's investigation, the only thing damaged is Prime Time's environmental objectivity.

Russert Returns to 1990

NBC Meet the Press host Tim Russert has added
historical perspective to the budget debate by comparing the
Clinton plan to the 1990 deal. On June 27, he grilled Budget
Director Leon Panetta: "You raised taxes, the economy went
further into recession, and there was no deficit reduction. Why is it
going to be different in `92 when it didn't work in `90?" Treasury
Secretary Lloyd Bentsen received the same welcome on July 25.
"1990. Congress got together with the President, raised taxes,
cut defense, tried to limit Medicare growth, promised a $500
billion dollar deficit reduction....The deficit went up. Why
isn't the same going to happen this year?"

The same day, he asked Sen. Pete Domenici (R-N.M.): "What do
you think of a plan that raises taxes a couple hundred billion
dollars, limits growth on Medicare, cuts a little defense
spending, reduces the interest on the public debt, and promises
$500 billion in deficit reduction?" Domenici condemned Clinton's
plan, and Russert sprung his trap: "The plan I actually talked
about was the one you supported in 1990, vigorously...you raised taxes,
and what happened is you promised $500 billion dollars in
deficit reduction and instead the deficit went up $50 billion."

Eye on Male Bashing

CBS reporter Bernard Goldberg punctured the politically correct bubble of TV news on the June 24 Eye to Eye withConnie Chung.
His report took a look at feminist male-bashers. "Male bashing
has become part of the American culture," Goldberg noted. "Redbook magazine says male bashing is reaching epidemic proportions. Newsweek says 'So what! White guys are paranoid.'"

Goldberg allowed feminists to defend themselves, but his
questions exposed some zealotry. "At the Whitney Museum in New
York this spring, you got this button as you walked in: 'I can't
ever imagine wanting to be white.'" He asked the exhibit
curator if she would allow the button to read "I can't ever
imagine wanting to be homosexual" or "a woman" or "black"? Her
reply: "I would never have allowed that."

At an anti-male "rage conference," he asked two women why
they were so angry. They said men "get all the good jobs, they
rape women" and "all white men share [guilt] simply by virtue of
the fact they are white and they have penises."

Ron Reagan Reports

On the premiere of the Fox Front Page magazine, Ron Reagan Jr.
reported the intrusive effects of the Endangered Species Act on
a Utah developer, Brant Child. "At issue is what he wants to do
with his property. He had big plans: campground, golf course,
curio shop. There was just one little problem. His problem was
the Kanab amber snail."

On the other side, "Carl Pope of the Sierra Club says all
species deserve protection. If any die out it eventually hurts
the human species." But Reagan asked: "There must be 20 pearly
mussels classified as endangered ...How many...mussels do we
need?"

Media's Lack of Religion Addressed

Absence of Chalice

Since Washington Post reporter Michael Weisskopf
called Christians "largely poor, uneducated, and easy to
command" in a February 1 story, the media's shallow coverage of
religion received some overdue attention.

In the July/August Columbia Journalism Review, Time political
writer Laurence Barrett admitted: "Newspapers, magazines and
networks frequently assign African-Americans to cover civil
rights stories and related issues. Women journalists of a
liberal bent often write about feminist concerns. Even if we had
more conservative evangelicals in the ranks, I doubt they would
be employed the way blacks and women have been. Conservative
Christians are politically suspect." Barrett blamed "the
cultural chasm dividing most national political writers and editors from
the roughly 20 percent of the population that constitutes the
core of the white, conservative evangelical movement."

Similarly, Scripps-Howard religion columnist Terry Mattingly described the greatest bias in the July/August Quill. "Bias
of world view. It is hard to write a good story if you don't
care that it exists." Mattingly wondered: "Can the `media elite'
afford to offend a large segment of the population in an age of
declining interest in newspapers and traditional network news?"
Indeed, Barrett found "one reason for the deepening alienation
of religious conservatives is that they've just about tuned out
the mainstream media."

American liberals have a love affair with Europe. America's
failure to emulate Europe's all-inclusive social programs
regularly earns the network put-down that the U.S. is "the only
industrialized nation except South Africa not to have"
subsidized day care, paid family leave, or socialized medicine. On the
CBS magazine show Street Stories July 2, correspondent
Harold Dow promoted France's "free" child care. For one-sided
promotion of a socialist system, Dow earned the August Janet Cooke
Award.

The host of Street Stories, Ed Bradley, began: "Harold
Dow found a place where dependable, affordable child care is
available to everyone. You won't find it in the Yellow Pages,
but you will find it on the map. Head east and you could be
heading in the next direction in American child care."

Dow told a tale of two mothers, the anxious, cost-ridden
Tracy Scheinoha of Milwaukee and Nancy Bragard: "She never
worries about day care. She doesn't have to. That's because
Nancy doesn't live in the United States anymore, she lives in
Paris, France." Proclaimed Nancy: "Thank God for French day
care. It's more than I would have asked for, for any of my kids."

Dow made his pitch: "Here in France they have created a child
care system that would amaze most Americans. Every child in
this country, from the richest family down to the poorest, gets a
chance at the same high standard of day care, preschool, and
health care. Not only is it free, or at low cost to everyone, but
the quality is better than what most youngsters get in the United
States." Dow also reported: "What you pay is based on your
income. So, while the Bragards pay nearly three thousand dollars a year
for the Creche [nursery], some families pay slightly more -- but
some pay much less -- as little as a few hundred dollars a
year."

Dow never told viewers that the top tax rate in France is
56.8 percent. On top of that, employers pay an additional annual
premium to the government for the child care system. Why no
details on taxes? The story's producer, Tom Berman, told MediaWatch:
"The French government wouldn't give us a breakdown of costs.
They just don't do it that way. We had our Paris bureau chief,
who's been there for 20 years, try to get some numbers, and even
he couldn't get them."

So how can CBS claim the system's "free or at low cost to
everyone"? Dr. James T. Bennett, an economist at George Mason
University and the co-author of the new book Official Lies,
recognizes the tactic: "Socialism sells itself with the thought
that you never see a bill. It just materializes out of nowhere.
As long as the government is paying, the government can just sort of
conjure it up. But remember to take a look at your paycheck when
the work week's done."

Nonetheless, Dow returned to the notion of a "free" system
repeatedly. "Next fall, Benjamin will be old enough to leave the
Creche for the next stage of the French government's child care
system, the Ecole-Maternelle, or preschool, which is totally
free." Dow also interviewed pleased American mother Victoria
Aubert, whose daughter also attends a government preschool, and
explained: "There's one in virtually every neighborhood in the
country, and almost every single three- to five-year-old French
child goes -- all day -- all for free."

Dow then promoted the French system to the Scheinohas in
Milwaukee: "What if I told you about the French system? A system
that provides total care for your children. They have beautiful
buildings, they've got trained professionals, doctors that come
in. What would you say?"

"Sounds too good to be true," Tracy replied. In the story's
sole incidence of skepticism, the Scheinohas turn out to be
critical of government. Dow asked: "One of the ways they do it
is higher taxes. The French people pay more than Americans do,
and French businesses pay much more than U.S. businesses. Would
you be willing to pay 20 percent, 30 percent, 40 percent, and even
up to 50 percent more by way of taxes, to have that system? Would you
be willing to pay that?"

Answered Tracy: "No. I'd have to draw the line somewhere. I'm
not getting very much for what I pay now, and I pay a lot in
taxes." Her husband, Andy, added: "You can't just take away the
money, promise the services, and not deliver, which is what I'd
be afraid would happen....I'd like to think that they could, but
their track record isn't too good."

Dow may have asked a vague question about taxes, but he
didn't report any details of the French system's total costs.
American University Professor Barbara Bergmann, a supporter of
the French model, suggests a similar system would cost more than $200
billion a year to implement fully in the United States. Dow never
factored in the burdens of the subsidized day care system on the
French economy. France has had almost no job growth -- civilian
employment went from 21.3 million in 1980 to 21.5 million in
1989, while at the same time the United States grew from 99.3 to
117.3 million jobs. Unemployed people are more common under
Dow's model system in France, where the unemployment rate is now
11.5 percent.

Why didn't CBS use these numbers? Berman told MediaWatch
"We only had ten minutes to tell the whole story. We had enough
to do a whole hour on the subject. Is it harder for employers
to employ people in France? Absolutely. But the Americans in
France think they have a better standard of living than their
brothers and sisters in America."

Dow also presented the system as completely uncriticized,
bringing Gail Richardson of the French-American Foundation on to
fondly remember Hillary Clinton's trip to France in 1989:
"Hillary was tremendously impressed by what she saw in France,
and she was most of all impressed by the consensus. She looked
for some expression of opposition to the programs that she saw, many of
which enjoy considerable public support, didn't find it."

But the Socialists just suffered an enormous loss at the
polls, losing in 484 of 577 districts. Wouldn't that suggest
recent dissatisfaction? Berman responded that "It's not a
complaint about the day care system. There are all kinds of
debates about the school system after day care and other issues, but no
one's complaining about these programs for small children."

A balanced story comparing European-style social programs
with the United States would present the negative consequences
as well as the positive, and deal frankly with the issue of how
much programs cost, both directly and indirectly. But TV news
stories often sound more like ten-minute ads for statism than a balanced
examinations of the pluses and minuses.

Federal employees and military personnel can donate to the Media Research Center through the Combined Federal Campaign or CFC. To donate to the MRC, use CFC #12489. Visit the CFC website for more information about giving opportunities in your workplace.